Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that by explaining that a closed project 'records nothing further' (terminal, effectively irreversible) and that a diagnosed rerun opens a new project referencing rerunOfProjectId. It does not, however, cover permission requirements or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, followed by the terminal-state consequence and a scope tag. Nothing is padded, though the trailing 'Scope: write.' largely restates the annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers terminality and the follow-on rerun semantics, which is the information an agent most needs. It stops short of idempotency, permissions, and failure behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, with projectId and customerId already documented in-schema. The description says the close carries a 'reason' but does not explain the enum meanings (candidate_approved, gate_failed, abandoned, superseded), which is the one place it could have compensated. Baseline 3 for mid coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (close a fine-tuning project) and immediately names the required input (its reason), which separates it cleanly from create_fine_tuning_project, get_fine_tuning_project, and list_fine_tuning_projects. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when this is used (terminal outcomes such as an approved candidate or a failed gate) and notes the rerun path, but it never states when to prefer close_fine_tuning_project over alternatives or what preconditions must hold. Usage is inferable from the reason enum rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.